Liberal Christians

[JackRT]

so tell me why would a president who has all the money anyone could possibly want ALREADY, want to become president at age 71? the man is not "out for himself", he is genuinely wanting to help the country.

He is not out for money --- I am convinced that he is out to feed his ego.

 

[Albion]

Being anti-Trump is hatred?

Brother, those points about Trump are observations. They are not opinion. They *are not* emotion. Though, I admit they lead to some.

Trump divides. He attacks. He lies daily. He mocks. He brags. He doesn't comprehend.

Those are *facts*. There is no hatred in pointing that out.

We're not talking about you. Or should I say that I was not referring to you.

In the OP, however, we were told about someone else who is known to "Violet Edge." You don't know that person. The information was somewhat imprecise, but it didn't describe a routine proponent of women's rights to equal pay or someone who thinks that the president ought to favor a different policy in Syria, for example.

We know that there has been a steady stream of viciousness and hate directed at the people's choice by the self-styled "Resistance" from the day he was elected.

Incidentally, what you wrote about the President may not be hateful, but is it the way a Christian should speak? You certainly were making assumptions and then accusations. I think that this gets us closer to what the OP was asking about.

 

[com7fy8]

so if the Bible teaches such things then conservatism supports Christian claims. liberalism on the other hand encourages sin, for example, homosexuality, transgenderism. would you agree?

There are conservatives who are not by the Bible; they can spend a lot of time pointing the finger at others, while they themselves do not have self-control of the Holy Spirit against their own arguing and complaining (Philippians 2:13-16) and food abuse (Hebrews 13:5) and fear (1 John 4:18) and anxiety (Philippians 4:6-7) and other anti-love things, including unforgiveness and frustration and workaholic wasting of themselves.

Instead of being first attentive to pointing out how they themselves can be wrong, they concentrate on criticizing others, even though the Bible plainly says,

"For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?" (1 Peter 4:17)

So, if I obey this and am a Biblical example (1 Peter 5:3, Hebrews 12:4-11), I understand that God will have me making people wise, "first", to how I myself can be wrong and deceptive.

I need to make people wise to how I can self-righteously look down on others, use women only to eyeball them and fantasize with them, and paranoidly imagine how I can put problem people down and imagine ways to get rid of them and problems, instead of personally caring for them in prayer and trusting God to manage if and how and when He takes care of problems (2 Corinthians 12:7-15).

And love does not have me just using anyone, including love does not have me only using women to look at them.

So, I need to be prayerfully careful not to let myself be tricked and tempted into mainly judging and criticizing others who call themselves liberals and conservatives while they do not do God's word. I can get into my own wrong things. And living in God's love is so better.

Learning how to love (Matthew 11:28-30) any and all people (Matthew 5:46) is one of the main challenges we need to face. So, trying just to change what others are doing can be a decoy trick to keep us from all which we could be sharing with God and one another.

 

[AlexDTX]

Seems to me that Jesus did not follow that example of not telling others that they were hypocrites as in Luke 11:44 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like graves which are not seen, and the men who walk over them are not aware of them.” Luke 13:1-5

Speaking the truth in love also agrees with a word in due season how good it is. There is a time and place for everything. If you follow the timeline of Jesus ministry you will see that Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites, and other deprecatory names, only after they began their plot to murder Him. He was still reaching out to men like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimethea who were truly open to the truth.

Wisdom in speaking the truth is also love. I am not in disagreement with the OP. I, too, have walked with the Lord for many decades and the older I get the more I realize things are not simple black and white as I thought in my early walk with Christ.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here's the problem, in a nutshell: the politics that would most closely align with Christ would be these:

Feed the poor = support welfare
Heal the sick = support universal medical care, free for those who cannot pay.
Provide for the widow and orphan = Social Security and disability and welfare benefits.
Defend the innocent, turn the other cheek, forgive and redeem = oppose the death penalty
Do not kill = oppose war
Do not kill = oppose abortion (and provide welfare for the poor babies who were not aborted, and their mothers, and fathers also if unable to care for them).
Forgive debt = forgive debt.
Marriage is a sacred bond = no divorce, except for adultery; no remarriage after divorce.
Eschew sexual immorality, and lead away from temptation = no inappropriate content, no regularization of fornication, no "gay" marriage, no public celebration or recognition of homosexuality at all: it is shameful and there is nothing to be proud of (but don't legally punish it).
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you = no slavery, control prisons so they are not violent places for inmates.

Neither political party is anything like that.

American "liberals" do not want any sort of legal or social restrictions on sexuality.
American "conservatives" categorically oppose welfare.
Americans do not want to give up foreign empire and the war that inevitable comes from having one.
Americans do not want to give up on harsh criminal laws, long imprisonment under bitter conditions. Americans do not want to turn the other cheek, or forgive, or do unto others (kindly) if they hate the others.
Americans do want to judge.

Essentially, Americans, conservatives and liberals, want to be Americans, not followers of Christ, but they want to be followers of Christ also. They want to have their cake and eat it to.

So what that means is that Americans support about 33% of Christ's message, and oppose the other 66%, and yell at the other kind of Christian American for the parts that each doesn't like.

Truth is, to have a political system that fit Christ's commandments, you would have to have a Swedish social welfare state, with Latin American abortion and gay marriage laws, and the marriage laws of the Catholic Church.

Every American finds aspects of Christ's law eminently hateable and unacceptable, but very, very, very few Christian Americans will ever admit that. Instead, they'll judge what the other guy is doing wrong, but make exceptions and allowances for the parts of Christ's message they don't like.

Most Americans hate Jesus' law of divorce and remarriage, which is that you can't divorce except for the other partners adultery, and you can't remarry at all. And you can't have sex outside of marriage.

Conservatives correctly despise homosexual behavior and treat gay marriage as a mockery and a travesty. But they don't even hear Jesus when he says that heterosexual remarriage after divorce is all adultery. They hate Jesus when it comes to that, because it means that Jesus commands you to stay married, and if you divorce, to be celibate for the rest of your ex-spouse's life.

American Christians support the third of Christ's message they like, and oppose the other 2/3rds, and become very angry when you point it out to them.

Although I disagree with your belief on Catholicism, what you said here is true. No political party exists today that perfectly represents Christians (according to God's Word).

While there are problems on both Conservative and Liberal camps of Christianity, I would say that Conservatives at least have a better approach at how to read God's Word. They take a literal approach to reading God's Word unless indicated in Scripture that it is clearly talking about a metaphor by the context. But the Conversative Christian's problem is that they are not as loving as they should be. They need to help the poor, and not push capitalism (i.e. for people to be rich alone). They need to stop putting up walls like Trump is trying to do with Mexico and they need to love people in general. Yet on the other hand, Conversative Christians cannot be dumb by giving entrance to to the US to just anyone, like those who follow the Quran, which is a book that teaches violence at it's core (Thereby leading us to be internally infiltrated by a violent religious enemy faction one day). Christian Conservatives also need to love their environment, too (Instead of destroying it). Granted, that should not be our entire life focus (Thereby turning it into a religion). But Christians should be good stewards of their environment. Christian Conservatives also are wrong for tending to push war, as well. Jesus said turn the other cheek and to pray and to do good towards your enemies.

Liberals (as you said) take a liberal approach on sexuality. In fact, Liberal Christians have different levels of openness to prostitution, divorce, sex outside marriage and contraception. They also take a liberal approach on abortion and euthanasia, too. Liberals deny Biblical inerrancy. Meaning, they believe God's Word has mistakes within in it. Many of them think stories like Adam and Eve are just a metaphor and there was no real snake in the Garden. Many Liberal Christians hold to the idea that Christ embodied the divine power of creative transformation. Liberal Christians tend to believe in Theistic Evolution, as well. Liberal Christians tend to believe in saying to others, "Jesus said, do not judge." (When in reality Jesus was talking about hypocritical judgment).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Being feminist and anti-trump is anti-Christian values?

I don't really understand this connection you (appear to be) are drawing at all.

Trump is a terrible human being. His moral character is atrocious by Christian standards. He attacks and divides. He accuses and mocks. He brags. He dissembles and lies constantly. He isn't very intelligent. He shows little sign that he comprehends the details or indeed, any of the issues he supposedly represents. He appears surprised to learn how complicated politics is. None of that is Christian to me. None of that shouts, "Gee, if you're against Trump you must not support Christian values." Quite the opposite! I cannot fathom how a self-respecting Christian would align themselves with that monstrosity.

Then there's feminism. I don't want to get to far into this one, but how is feminism anti-Christian?

Yeah, I also agree with you on this one, too. Feminism is not anti-Christian. God encourages women to be women and not men. While this does not mean that women cannot wear pants and or work at a job, I do not see a conflict in women being in support of feminism. Women should look and act like women; And there is nothing wrong with women desiring to be house wives if that is what God calls them to do.

I would actually take anti-feminism as being anti-Christian. But what does anti-feminism mean? They could cut their hair short and build up their muscles and look more masculine. They could be strongly against women staying at home to be a house wife and think that women need to take on more jobs that men mostly do (Which are physical and intense). Granted, it is not wrong for a woman to work at a job that is hard on physical labor, it just should not be a part of some campaign for them to be like a man or anything.

 

[JackRT]

There was a question earlier in this thread concerning how liberal/progressive Christian approaches scripture. Some conservative Christians argue that the Bible is to be taken literally and is inerrant. Moreover they argue that scripture explains scripture and that the "plain meaning" of scripture is obvious. I have found that to be far from the truth of the matter. More often than not scripture must be read in context and by that I don't mean just the surrounding verses. A full understanding requires knowledge of Jewish history, religious practices and beliefs, cultural practices and literary traditions. The examples below should illustrate my point:

Matthew 5:39 --- “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” --- In an honour/shame, domination/submission culture such as existed in the first century in the Middle East, this saying has a far different meaning than a straightforward reading of it might indicate. If a man were to strike a social equal, he would strike him with the palm of his right hand on the left cheek. However if a man were to slap a social inferior he would do so with the back of his hand to the inferior’s right cheek. If the inferior were then to turn his other cheek it would force his assailant to treat him as a social equal by striking with the palm of his right hand. Since slapping is no longer a widespread cultural practice, it can be helpful if you could actually act this out with another person. Jesus’ audience likely would have had a good laugh at his comment. Jesus is not counseling humility here, he is counseling a covert defiance.

Matthew 5:40 ---“If someone sues you for your coat, give up your shirt as well.” --- In Jewish law if you fail to repay a debt you may be taken to court and if you are still unable to repay, the lender is entitled to take your coat. The lender holds the coat during the day but he is obliged to return it at night because the coat or cloak doubled as a blanket at night. In a two-garment society this would be highly embarrassing to the debtor. However it would be even more embarrassing to the court and the lender if the debtor were to turn over both garments and stand there naked. Remember this was a society with a strong taboo against public nakedness. Using this somewhat risque humour Jesus is once again counseling covert defiance and taking the part of the poor against the rich. I'll bet his audience laughed out loud. Humour is a great aid to the memory.

Matthew 5:41 --- “If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” --- In Roman law a soldier had every right to have a civilian carry his pack for one [Roman] mile but no further. For the civilian to carry the pack a further distance would be to embarrass the soldier and possibly to get him in trouble with a superior officer. Once again Jesus takes the part of the small against the powerful by suggesting covert defiance. I suspect that Jesus’ listeners ‘got the message’ especially since it was couched in such sarcastic humour.

 

[Vicomte13]

Unfortunately, the post you're reacting to was about conservative or liberal political policies and assumed that a religious L or C would have to vote a certain way in order to be true to Jesus' teachings, which isn't true at all. Jesus was not a politician but instead called people to be upright in their own lives.

BUT God called upon Kings and rulers to enforce and carry into practice his laws. He did not release men with actual political authority from the duty to obey him and carry out those laws. Prophets, such as Amos were sent by God specifically to excoriate kings for not carrying out the things that God had ordained as far as poverty relief and treatment of various protected people. Individual men were not rulers, and were not held accountable for the failure of the ruler to enforce the laws of God, but the RULERS WERE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. Kings did not have the discretion to decide not to use their offices, including the power to tax and redistribute, to ensure that widows and orphans, et al, were not provided for. Kings were not left to rule according to their free will. They were commanded to rule in a way that carried out God's laws. If the poor were not fed, the King was derelict, for he had been given the power, including the power to tax, to make sure that God's law of poverty relief was carried out (among other things).

There was no place for the king to hide. He was held accountable by God if he did not use his power - given to him by God - to carry out God's poverty law, and to enforce God's moral code.

Now then, you might reply that we do not have kings. That's true but not so fast. We no longer have a King (and, mind you, the Christian King DID have redistributive poverty programs, and DID have hospitals and the like), but the REASON we no longer have a king is because we, of our own sovereign choice, rose up and drove off or killed the king, and took the power for ourselves. So We the People, now, collectively, each hold a piece of his crown.

By destroying the office, we did not in any way destroy the duty of the office to execute God's laws. That responsibility remains with the ruling sovereign. If We, the People, are the ruling sovereign (and we are), then we have the same legal obligation as the kings we deposed and whose thrones and crowns we subdivided among our hands. We cannot rule directly, as the kings did, but we do rule indirectly, through the vote. We're very proud of our right to vote. We are, collectively, the king, and that means that actually , yes,m, we are absolutely bound by God's law to support and enact laws that carry out God's law with regards to poverty relief and morality as well. We vote, of our own will, to do either our duty, as king, to do the holy thing ordained by God, or we choose to be apostate fractional kings and vote for the laws of Ba'al and Satan.

If you think that you are not accountable to God for the moral content and reasoning for your political stances and votes, you're wrong. We chose to make ourselves king, in our republics. This exposes us to the royal duties imposed by God, and divine accountability for shirking them. You vote is not outside of the sphere of religion. It is not a place where you are allowed(by God) to blow off the moral law of God. That's a bit of a pity, given the degree to which our politics is so often a matter of choosing the lesser evil.

 

[Vicomte13]

Unfortunately, the post you're reacting to was about conservative or liberal political policies and assumed that a religious L or C would have to vote a certain way in order to be true to Jesus' teachings, which isn't true at all. Jesus was not a politician but instead called people to be upright in their own lives.

BUT God called upon Kings and rulers to enforce and carry into practice his laws. He did not release men with actual political authority from the duty to obey him and carry out those laws. Prophets, such as Amos were sent by God specifically to excoriate kings for not carrying out the things that God had ordained as far as poverty relief and treatment of various protected people. Individual men were not rulers, and were not held accountable for the failure of the ruler to enforce the laws of God, but the RULERS WERE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. Kings did not have the discretion to decide not to use their offices, including the power to tax and redistribute, to ensure that widows and orphans, et al, were not provided for. Kings were not left to rule according to their free will. They were commanded to rule in a way that carried out God's laws. If the poor were not fed, the King was derelict, for he had been given the power, including the power to tax, to make sure that God's law of poverty relief was carried out (among other things).

There was no place for the king to hide. He was held accountable by God if he did not use his power - given to him by God - to carry out God's poverty law, and to enforce God's moral code.

Now then, you might reply that we do not have kings. That's true but not so fast. We no longer have a King (and, mind you, the Christian King DID have redistributive poverty programs, and DID have hospitals and the like), but the REASON we no longer have a king is because we, of our own sovereign choice, rose up and drove off or killed the king, and took the power for ourselves. So We the People, now, collectively, each hold a piece of his crown.

By destroying the office, we did not in any way destroy the duty of the office to execute God's laws. That responsibility remains with the ruling sovereign. If We, the People, are the ruling sovereign (and we are), then we have the same legal obligation as the kings we deposed and whose thrones and crowns we subdivided among our hands. We cannot rule directly, as the kings did, but we do rule indirectly, through the vote. We're very proud of our right to vote. We are, collectively, the king, and that means that actually , yes,m, we are absolutely bound by God's law to support and enact laws that carry out God's law with regards to poverty relief and morality as well. We vote, of our own will, to do either our duty, as king, to do the holy thing ordained by God, or we choose to be apostate fractional kings and vote for the laws of Ba'al and Satan.

If you think that you are not accountable to God for the moral content and reasoning for your political stances and votes, you're wrong. We chose to make ourselves king, in our republics. This exposes us to the royal duties imposed by God, and divine accountability for shirking them. You vote is not outside of the sphere of religion. It is not a place where you are allowed(by God) to blow off the moral law of God. That's a bit of a pity, given the degree to which our politics is so often a matter of choosing the lesser evil.

 

[JackRT]

You can say that again!

 

[Vicomte13]

I would say that Conservatives at least have a better approach at how to read God's Word. They take a literal approach to reading God's Word unless indicated in Scripture that it is clearly talking about a metaphor by the context.

Then why do we, in the wealthiest country in the world, have homelessness, hungry people, people crushed by unforgiven debts, and a shabby system of official poverty relief? Why do conservatives generally oppose the sort of comprehensive poverty relief that God spelled out extensively in the Torah, and debt forgiveness that YHWH also spelled out in detail in the Torah, and that Jesus reprised over and over again, even in the Lord's Prayer: "and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors"?

And why do conservatives not condemn the American death penalty, given the number of innocent people that it kills?

And why do American conservatives not decry divorce and remarriage with the same intensity they decry homosexuality?

What I see is that American conservatives strongly support a third of what Jesus propounds, and don't want to have anything to do with the other 2/3rds, because it will redistribute wealth and power, and it will limit sexual liberty in ways that conservatives don't want it limited (to wit: remarriage after divorce).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Occasionally, liberal Christians take Scriptures literally that conservatives allegorize.

Yes, in my case, this would be Genesis 9 with Noah and Ham's Story. I believe metaphors are being used in this story and it is referring to Noah's wife when it says, "the nakedness of his father" (Which is taken from Leviticus's reference of relating "the father's nakeness" with meaning sexual relations).

So What Really Happened in Noah's Tent After the Flood?

But in most cases, the Liberal Christian tends to take a more liberal approach with the Scriptures. Especially on moral issues (like sexuality, abortion, etc.) and certain historical events that sound too miraculous for them to believe (Like a talking snake in a Garden and a great fish that swallowed up Jonah, etc.). It's why they are called Liberals and they even refer to themselves as Liberal. For they say things like, I am getting more liberal all the time. This means that they are not taking as seriously what? Christianity or the Bible? This to me is a problem.

 

[Vicomte13]

"Jesus said, do not judge." (When in reality Jesus was talking about hypocritical judgment).

True. But who, then, can judge anything sexual? All are hypocrites if they do.
Or liars - who can judge them, then?

Murderers and rapists? Most can judge them without hypocrisy.

 

[jmldn2]

The Bible isn't liberal or conservative. It's truth. It teaches us how to live in Christ. It tells us what holy living looks like and how we should view sin and the world while at the same time loving our neighbors.

It teaches us to uphold righteousness without being self righteous. It teaches us to judge without being judgmental.

It doesn't teach a social construct or a political structure. Jesus was not a conservative and he was not a socialist. The Bible teaches us as BELIEVERS to be self sufficient and not be a burden on others. It also teaches us to help those that need help. It teaches us to discipline those in the church who are actively sinning and not listening to reproof. It teaches us to be VERY humble when doing so because we might he next. God teaches us that we have the freedom to make choices, but we do not have the freedom to choose our consequences.

I agree with your above post except for the "self sufficient" part. I believe in being as self sufficient and self reliant as we can but at the same time we need to realize God is our Helper and we actually are to seek His help with all matters. He has a plan and in order for us to follow it, we need His help to do so.

 

[jmldn2]

im a hardcore conservative Christian. I have always thought that conservative views go hand and hang with Christianity. Morals. Values. Standards. These are things I thought Christians should stand up for.

I can understand how some economic views such as capitalism and like healthcare can be controversial for anyone (including Christians) but issues such as abortion, gay rights, transgenderism, islam, - aren't these topics that all Christian's should be consistent with opposing? I mean, the Bible does support opposing it... so if Christians support scripture, why are some Christians liberal??? like shouldn't Christians be conservative?

I know a couple people who claim they are Christian but also have very liberal ideas. for example, this girl i met recently is basically a hardcore feminist, anti-trump, it seems her idealogy cannot support Christian values. This is just one example, I know so many Christians that are liberal. and i just dont understand

thoughts?

I dont wanna start a debate here, i am just genuinely concerned for the way our society is moving - LIBERAL.

I'm conservative politically. I stand against abortion, transgenderism, radical Islam, gay lifestyle. Having said this, I see value in all human life. As for liberal Christians, I see only the word Christian. Should we give an adjective before Christian; liberal or conservative?

 

[disciple1]

im a hardcore conservative Christian. I have always thought that conservative views go hand and hang with Christianity. Morals. Values. Standards. These are things I thought Christians should stand up for.

I can understand how some economic views such as capitalism and like healthcare can be controversial for anyone (including Christians) but issues such as abortion, gay rights, transgenderism, islam, - aren't these topics that all Christian's should be consistent with opposing? I mean, the Bible does support opposing it... so if Christians support scripture, why are some Christians liberal??? like shouldn't Christians be conservative?

I know a couple people who claim they are Christian but also have very liberal ideas. for example, this girl i met recently is basically a hardcore feminist, anti-trump, it seems her idealogy cannot support Christian values. This is just one example, I know so many Christians that are liberal. and i just dont understand

thoughts?

I dont wanna start a debate here, i am just genuinely concerned for the way our society is moving - LIBERAL.

abortion, gay rights, transgenderism, islam,

By the law all these things are wrong, but you don't obey the law, and no one else does either.
If your a true Christian, not a hypocrite, you know we're only justified by following Jesus's example of love.

Proverbs chapter 10 verse 12
Love covers all wrongs.

1 Peter chapter 4 verse 8
Love covers a great many sins.

Romans chapter 4
13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

I personally think it is wrong to politicise Christianity. There are some aspects which we associate with right wing politics such as on abortion, homosexuality, family values, etc. Then there are some that probably fall more into the left wing camp such as love your neighbour and everyone is born equal.

am more right wing in my politics but rather than think of it as having become more liberal as I get older, I see it as less judgemental. For example when I was younger I hated gays (dure to growing up in a gay area and suffering many years of unwanted attention and propositioning from about the age of 10) but God has softend my heart so I now just see them as sinners lost in their sin who need to be saved.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Then why do we, in the wealthiest country in the world, have homelessness, hungry people, people crushed by unforgiven debts, and a shabby system of official poverty relief? Why do conservatives generally oppose the sort of comprehensive poverty relief that God spelled out extensively in the Torah, and debt forgiveness that YHWH also spelled out in detail in the Torah, and that Jesus reprised over and over again, even in the Lord's Prayer: "and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors"?

As I said, the Conservative (Worldly) Christian today is not as loving. So yes; They have their problems, too.

Personally, I think there are:

1. Conservative Christians (Who are wordly).
2. Liberal Christians.
3. Conservative Christians (Who truly desire and strive to follow what Jesus and His Word says).
4. Conservative Christians (Who truly do follow Jesus and what His word says).

My question for you: Where does Catholicism fit on this chart?
Are there different levels of Catholicism in your view?
Granted, I do not believe Catholicism is biblical, I am just curious of where you think you fall in on this chart?

As for the Torah: Um, well, I believe that after the Fall, that God gave man (Adam) New Eternal Moral Laws for him to follow (Such as do not murder, do not sleep with your parents, do not sleep with another man's wife, do not steal, do not get drunk, do not covet, etc.). I believe these Eternal Moral Laws by God continued on into the Written Law of Moses and on after. In other words, the Written Law merely just emphasized their importance and the Written Law added new laws that were exclusive to the nation of Israel (Including ceremonial and judicial laws). But after Christ's death, the laws exclusive to Israel (Including the ceremonial and judicial laws) were no more. Christ began a New Covenant with New Laws (Including the Continuation of God's Eternal Moral Laws) after His death. So I would not say, "Torah." Because the Torah was something that was tied more with the Written Law given to Israel (Even though the Torah included an explanation of man's origin in the book of Genesis, etc.). Torah is more in reference to the Old Law given exclusively to Israel. This Law is no longer binding for the Christian today. For the church is not the nation of Israel.

Side Note:

Granted, several Ceremonial Laws that can be seen practiced before the Written Law at certain times was: (1) the Law on animal sacrifices, (2) the observing of the Saturday sabbath, (3) circumcision, and (4) the separation of clean and unclean animals. However, these ceremonial laws were never meant to last forever. They were shadows or types that pointed to Christ (and they are no longer binding under the New Covenant).

And why do conservatives not condemn the American death penalty, given the number of innocent people that it kills?

As I said before, Conservative Christians (who are more worldly) need to be more loving and follow Jesus.

And why do American conservatives not decry divorce and remarriage with the same intensity they decry homosexuality?

Not all sins are the same. But if you have to ask such a question, I am pretty sure you do not get it on a moral level (of which I prefer not to discuss).

What I see is that American conservatives strongly support a third of what Jesus propounds, and don't want to have anything to do with the other 2/3rds, because it will redistribute wealth and power, and it will limit sexual liberty in ways that conservatives don't want it limited (to wit: remarriage after divorce).

As I said, Conservative Christians (who are wordly) need to be more loving and follow Jesus.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

True. But who, then, can judge anything sexual? All are hypocrites if they do.
Or liars - who can judge them, then?

Murderers and rapists? Most can judge them without hypocrisy.

I know it's hard for you to believe but the Bible does teach that a believer can walk perfectly and upright. It's not easy and I am not saying I am perfect. I just know the Bible does teach that believers can be perfect and walk righteously if they submit themselves fully to Christ. It's a day by day struggle. But I have faith that God will lead me to walking such a path of perfection one day.

 

[98cwitr]

im a hardcore conservative Christian. I have always thought that conservative views go hand and hang with Christianity. Morals. Values. Standards. These are things I thought Christians should stand up for.

I can understand how some economic views such as capitalism and like healthcare can be controversial for anyone (including Christians) but issues such as abortion, gay rights, transgenderism, islam, - aren't these topics that all Christian's should be consistent with opposing? I mean, the Bible does support opposing it... so if Christians support scripture, why are some Christians liberal??? like shouldn't Christians be conservative?

I know a couple people who claim they are Christian but also have very liberal ideas. for example, this girl i met recently is basically a hardcore feminist, anti-trump, it seems her idealogy cannot support Christian values. This is just one example, I know so many Christians that are liberal. and i just dont understand

thoughts?

I dont wanna start a debate here, i am just genuinely concerned for the way our society is moving - LIBERAL.

Just be careful not to start looking at liberals as the Judeans looked at the Samaritans. We're all just people in the end. Learn that >2000 year old lesson. You don't have to agree, you don't even have to be willing to assimilate, just accept that they are who they are and be neighborly.

my .02